Milcon

This is the contracting policy team that this person is part of.

That is a very good question and one I will ask them.

Well- it is currently being done so.... Yes. Great description of the issue at hand except the question of total task order value and how it should be handled was not answered. Unless he is in agreement with my policy person who says that because we are not decreasing the scope then we shouldn't decrease the total task order value.

posted 8 minutes ago and so begins my dilemma

Very good description! So if as you say that it’s not a change in scope should the total contract value/amount be changed or not?

I am only describing the process as it was told to me. The CLIN is CR and this is what they do.

Yes that is pretty much what the CLIN looks like. I do not believe there is anything that states this is an estimate but there is language stating that travel is cost reimbursable so if we approve the travel cost we pay them for it. If we need more money, we add a CLIN and then if they don't use all the money the remaining is deobligated after the end of the option period.

Vern, The travel costs are pre approved before travel is taken and then they submit invoices and we reimburse what they pay along with minimal G&A cost so there are no surprise costs.

In the Base IDIQ 52.216-7 was included in the award. 52.232-20 was not.

Ok- so more clarifications: the deobligation happens after the POP for that option year is over, the contractor agrees that they have completed invoicing and have been paid for all travel for that option period and they also sign the modification (sometimes) I have seen it done both ways as we do have them agreeing in writing before the mod is issued (what a CO has told me). The travel money is always an estimate when the task order is awarded. I have seen modification to add another CLIN for travel when more money is needed as well as the deobligations. The CLIN is always for 1 LOT and is not by quantity- so it is a "pot" of money that is available to reimburse the contractor for travel that is preapproved. The total contract value is tracked on the modification because it can change based on increases due to REAs ect.. or deobligations and it is not necessarily an internal number as the same number is on FPDS that is tracked and reported to congress. Additionally the contractor can tract this number too as at time of award they would know the total task order value/amount (inclusive of all the unfunded options)

Thank you to everyone that has responded to this thread. I didn't realize at the time of posting that it would garner so many responses. I believe that I have the information to go forward and speak to my policy office intelligently and in the future if I decided to ask another question I will make sure there is enough detail so it leads to less confusion. Just to clear up any confusion there are two dollar amounts that are tracked- the obligated amount and the total task order value/amount. This team always notes these two numbers on modifications and the obligated amount and total task order value/amount are always different $ amounts due to unfunded options. This is a FP task order with a CR line for travel that is fully funded at the time of option exercise. When the travel money is not fully used we deobligate and we would reduce the CLIN by the amount we deobligate which reduces the total task order value/amount. What my policy person in my office is saying is the we should not reduce the CLIN amount but still deobligate the funds- ie we are deobligating 5k from an funded 10K CLIN- the CLIN would still be for 10K but now only funded for 5K. From everything that everyone has posted it looks like my team has been doing it correctly and reducing the CLIN to match the amount actually spent. Again I appreciate all the help!

Thank you. I will check this out.

Thank you. I will review. I think we both have burden of proof. Thank you to all who have commented. I appreciate your help.

What is with the snarky comments? Has WIFCON started being rude to people trying to get clarification. I apologize if something I stated wasn't clear or if I offended someone by asking follow up questions or that I asked where something is stated. My policy team is telling me not to reduce the total task order value. If I go back to them stating that what we are doing (reducing the total task order value) is correct and we will continue, I would like to have something to show them stating what I am doing is correct- hence asking "Is it stated anywhere that this is what we do. Or this this "just what we do"?"

No. Each year has its own travel CLIN.

Joel, Is it stated anywhere that this is what we do. Or this this "just what we do"?

Formerfed, The contracting office is deobligating the unused travel funds. This has nothing to do with the FP CLINS, only the CR travel CLIN. I was just told by policy that we shouldn't be reducing the total task order amount when travel is deobligated, as it is not decreasing the scope (they said that is the only reason the reduce the total task order value). The thing is is the original dollar amount on the CLIN is an estimate- we often add another CLIN for more travel when needed-(it is all based on new hiring training). If we don't use it, it is deobligated. But do I reduce the total task order value when the money is deobligated? Or does the total task order value stay the same.

I have a FFP task order with a cost reimbursable CLIN for travel. After an option year is over any travel funds remaining are deobligated. I noticed that the total task order value is decreased based on the deobligation. Is this correct? Or should the total task order value stay the same as the deobligation was not a change in scope?